Question for NightEternal

[tall73]

Night, I have a question for both you and Foofighter,

It's quite obvious that you expend much time and energy finding fault with all of Adventism and expounding your views. It sounds like Foofighter may do the same.

Which brings me to this question; What, if anything, do you do to witness for Jesus Christ? Also how much time, if any, do you set aside each day, week, month, ect., for spreading the gospel?

Respectfully,
Doc

Off topic distraction.

But I will answer it just so no one thinks we don't ever witness.

While I was in full time ministry I had great opportunities to share. During all that time I was studying too. The two are not in opposition.


Now my job starts later this month and I just moved twice, so it is hard to know a lot of people to share with since I don't have a lot of regular contact that work and such brings. But I am telling folks about Jesus whenever I can. I just had the opportunity to share with the father of one of my son's friends. I hope he takes it to heart.

And we are hoping now that we just moved again due to work to find a church we can get active in.


Now, perhaps you should start your own thread instead of derailing this one.

 

[tall73]

I
MVA, why don't you go join an independent ministry and get it over with. Because they are the only ones who can truly lay claim to living by the Testimonies 100%. No mainline Adventist can do the same. None.

It is hard enough to even read all of her counsels.

Better get started.

 

[tall73]

Look at it and look at it well. This is the inevitable result of those who take her words to their logical conclusion.

Night, if the logical conclusion of anyone who follows her advice is legalism and psychological breakdown then why would you want anyone coming anywhere near her writings?

Why support them in ANY way?

To me that does not make sense. Even if someone was used by God despite their failings I don't recommend their writings to someone if the result is mental breakdown and legalism.

 

[NightEternal]

Okay Foofighter, I promised you I would go into a little more detail concerning what I would like to see changed in the church. Here is a brief encapsulation of just some things that should be done:

THE IJ

* The IJ/1844/Heavenly Sanctuary should not be considered a testing truth in the denomination. The whole doctrine is questionable if not flat-out unBiblical.

* Those who wish to believe in this doctrine are free to, but the church should go on official record that there is no Biblical support for it and the church should also come clean and admit the doctrine's origins are hardly on firm foundation.

THE SABBATH

* There is serious question as to whether the Sabbath was instituted at creation. Further study should be done on this.

* There is serious question regarding the Sunday/mark of the beast issue. Further study should be done on this.

* The church should repudiate the Sabbath/seal of God belief. The church should also go on record as maintaining that the Holy Spirit is the seal of God, not the Sabbath.

EGW

* EGW should not have doctrinal authourity nor the authourity of the OT prophets, nor the authourity of the apostles. She should have pastoral authourity only. There should be no hint whatsoever that she is equal to the Bible.

* Belief in her inspiration should not be a requirement and such statements should be removed from the baptismal vows immediately. Belief in her should to be totally optional and left to the conscience of the individual.

* The EGW Estate should be shut down permanently.

* There should be full and total disclosure in regards to EGW in all matters, and this information is to be widely distibuted to the general lay membership so they can decide for themselves concerning her.

HEALTH MESSAGE

* The clean/unclean distinctions should be abolished. Anyone should be free to eat what they want according to thier conscience, and the only criteria for abstaining from any food should be health-related, not salvific or moral.

* The church should go on record that abstinence is not taught anywhere in Scripture, but rather moderation.

28 FB's

* The 28 fundamental beliefs should be abolished and replaced with just the basic Christian fundamentals.

BAPTISMAL VOWS

* The baptismal vows should be abolished and candidates should be baptized in Christ alone, not the organization.

SCHOLARS

* Our scholars should no longer be held under the control of administration. They should be free to do thier own research and come to thier own conclusions on theological issues without an EGW straight-jacket.

TITHING

I also have some questions regarding tithing. It is highly questionable if it is Biblical that the Levitical 10% system should be imposed any longer on the membership.

JEWELRY

* The church should repudiate the idea that the Bible prohibits the wearing of jewelry. It does not.

* The church should repudiate its prohibition against wedding rings. There is no Biblical basis for this nonsense anywhere in Scripture.

CHRIST'S NATURE/PERFECTION

* The church should repudiate the doctrines of sinless perfection and Christ having a sinful nature as atrocious heresy.

These are only a few. It would take me too long to outline everything in detail.

 

[NightEternal]

Night, if the logical conclusion of anyone who follows her advice is legalism and psychological breakdown then why would you want anyone coming anywhere near her writings?

Why support them in ANY way?

To me that does not make sense. Even if someone was used by God despite their failings I don't recommend their writings to someone if the result is mental breakdown and legalism.

It takes a discerning reader for sure. There are good things, but you have to wade through a whole lot of junk to get to it.

Some may think it is not worth the effort. That is fine. I am not in the business of endorsing and promoting EGW by any stretch of the imagination. By all means, stay with the Bible alone.

I am just explaining why I have personally not discarded her like some have.

As for the 'logical conclusion' thing, that only applies to those who live, breath, eat, sleep and die by her writings verbal dictation/infallibility style, and try to live by them 100%. Those of us who take the more balanced, reasonable 'pick and choose' approach and take her words with a grain of salt, knowing the score before going in, are in no danger of the repugnant end result I described.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Tall, I wasn't the one that opened the door for comparasion between the study/discission of EGW and evangelism.

I also fully undserstand the difficulties of moving. However I know from personal experience that moving, and almost every other common daily activity, also helps us to become very preoccupied with our own problems and self interest and miss chances to witness each and every day. These interest include debating topics such as are being debated in this thread.

It is most unfortunate that you have failed to grasp lesson that this thread has demonstrated.

Respectfully,
Doc

 

[NightEternal]

The Trad area is right there, under-utilized and stagnating. By all means, take your gripes out of here and go back across the fence where you belong.

Honor, that goes for you too.

 

[mva1985]

disobedient children stoned to death? when? tithe given to orphans widows and strangers? not the church you attend.... sabbath breakers put to death? not even.....

from the sounds of it you have elevated egw to godlike status... but hey, if it works for you...

when is alumni weekend at MVA this year?

The disobedient children being stoned - I thought you were referring to the OT text? Maybe I was mistaken.

I assure you that I have not elevated her to godlike status.

Alumni weekend is usually the last weekend in April, but I'll double check.

 

[tall73]

Tall, I wasn't the one that opened the door for comparasion between the study/discission of EGW and evangelism.

I also fully undserstand the difficulties of moving. However I know from personal experience that moving, and almost every other common daily activity, also helps us to become very preoccupied with our own problems and self interest and miss chances to witness each and every day. These interest include debating topics such as are being debated in this thread.

It is most unfortunate that you have failed to grasp lesson that this thread has demonstrated.

Respectfully,
Doc

Doc, please explain how your post is on topic. It seems like just a jab at night and foofighter.

In any case, I am not buying your line. Studying is not antithetical to witnessing at all.

The only lesson in your comments is that you want everyone to stop studying certain issues. You tried the same when I was studying the IJ. Then you recently suggested that I ignored evidence that you had in the traditional section. You didn't give any evidence, though the thread was there for any who wanted to. You just said that I shouldn't spend time on potentially divisive things.

If you really were worried about witnessing with every moment you wouldn't be here talking to us or moderating. Now perhaps you need your own thread, since you are off topic.

 

[tall73]

It takes a discerning reader for sure. There are good things, but you have to wade through a whole lot of junk to get to it.

Some may think it is not worth the effort. That is fine. I am not in the business of endorsing and promoting EGW by any stretch of the imagination. By all means, stay with the Bible alone.

I am just explaining why I have personally not discarded her like some have.

As for the 'logical conclusion' thing, that only applies to those who live, breath, eat, sleep and die by her writings verbal dictation/infallibility style, and try to live by them 100%. Those of us who take the more balanced, reasonable 'pick and choose' approach and take her words with a grain of salt, knowing the score before going in, are in no danger of the repugnant end result I described.

I really don't understand why you feel the need to give her writings any role at all if they are harmful.

 

[mva1985]

It is interesting that you make this comment. Allowing for God to use her in spite of OBVIOUS problems.

Yet EGW specifically says that her writings are either the work of God or the enemy. She does not allow for a gray area.

I'm surprised the progressives don't take this opportunity that she gave them to say that they are the work of the enemy - oh but wait a minute that really is in essence what you are saying.

By saying that there are obvious problems you dilute the effect of the testimonies and introduce picking and choosing what you want.

I rest my case.

MVA, why don't you go join an independent ministry and get it over with. Because they are the only ones who can truly lay claim to living by the Testimonies 100%. No mainline Adventist can do the same. None.

Never really had an interest in joining one, and it is not necessary to witness to those around you.

Of that small offshoot segment, those who truly do attempt to live by her counsel 100% in every area without question inevitably fall into one of two categories:

1.) They become anorexic, wacko, fundamentalist, extremist, fanatical freaks of nature who have time warped back to the 1800's, implementing educational, dietary and medical techniques that died out years ago. Most are truly unbalanced individuals who have lost touch with reality and the 21st century.

Uchee Pines or Hartland anyone?

2.) They become discouraged by the fact that it is impossible to live up to the ridiculous, perfectionist demands she makes of people and leave the group.

I don't believe that the fanatical right of Adventism is on the right track i.e. Historic Adventism. Uchee Pines I think does a good work though.

Pick your group and align with it. But please spare me the baloney that you or any other mainline Adventist follows her counsel 100%, because I assure you that is not the case.

You have already confessed to eating meat, so too bad, so sad, you're done. Condemned by the very words you claim to uphold in every aspect. Or do you believe eating meat wouldn't be an example of picking and choosing what to follow from the Testimonies?

No where have I claimed to have followed her Testimonies 100%. I'm a work in progress. God isn't finished with me yet!

 

[NightEternal]

Tall, what's the big deal? I can take her or leave her. I just choose to keep her for the value she has. This is pastoral authourity we are talking here. I am sure a person could find plenty of things that would have the potential to cause some damage in Luther, C.S. Lewis or Calvin's materials.

Heck, have you read Charles Spurgeon? He had just as many puritan overtoned, intolerant views as EGW! In fact, when I read Morning By Morning, I COULD SWEAR I WAS READING THE SAME 1800'S TERMINOLOGY AS EGW.

Also, when we are talking about psychological damage, I am talking about things like An Appeal To Mothers or the Testimonies To The Church.

Works like Steps To Christ and Desire Of Ages hardly have any potential danger in reading.

 

[tall73]

Tall, what's the big deal?

The big deal is that you are supporting an organization which promotes a far different view of her to many people including children who will not read as discerningly. You may not feel that way about it. But I just don't really understand it.

 

[Eila]

Tall, what's the big deal? I can take her or leave her. I just choose to keep her for the value she has. This is pastoral authourity we are talking here. I am sure a person could find plenty of things that would have the potential to cause some damage in Luther, C.S. Lewis or Calvin's materials.

Heck, have you read Charles Spurgeon? He had just as many puritan overtoned, intolerant views as EGW! In fact, when I read Morning By Morning, I COULD SWEAR I WAS READING THE SAME 1800'S TERMINOLOGY AS EGW.

Also, when we are talking about psychological damage, I am talking about things like An Appeal To Mothers or the Testimonies To The Church.

Works like Steps To Christ and Desire Of Ages hardly have any potential danger in reading.

When someone gets the Gospel wrong why would you want to hold onto anything they say? There are many Christian authors that I take the good and leave the bad but those who get the most important things wrong I have no respect for. Then you have the additional aspect that she apparently received her messages from an angel. The Bible says that even if an angel in heaven preaches a different Gospel to not listen to them.

JMHO

 

[mva1985]

Also, when we are talking about psychological damage, I am talking about things like An Appeal To Mothers or the Testimonies To The Church.

Works like Steps To Christ and Desire Of Ages hardly have any potential danger in reading.

.

 

[NightEternal]

The big deal is that you are supporting an organization which promotes a far different view of her to many people including children who will not read as discerningly. You may not feel that way about it. But I just don't really understand it.

I am not promoting her. I am not saying; "Hey everyone, go out and get her books and read them religously!"

In fact, I am promoting the opposite: Stay with the Bible alone. However, I do not believe that 'not promoting her' has to involve repudiating and writing off every single thing she wrote. That is an all or nothing approach which isn't much different than the black and white thinking of the Trads.

The church is entitled to consider her equal to the Bible if they wish. I have not, do not, and will not ever take such a position. I think for myself. They are responsible for violating Sola Scriptura, not me.

As for indoctrinating children before they have the ability to discern the good from the bad in her materials, I have always decried such an appalling tactic. It is the EGW Estate who will have to take responsibility for the Walter Rea's they create by doing such a despicable thing. The administration also has thier hands dirtry for not stopping it.

I have boldly spoken out against this at the risk of strirring up the wrath of the Trads, and I will continue to do so vehemently. I have written to the GC decrying it and written letters to the Review expressing my opposition. As a member of the church, I don't know that there is much more I CAN do, short of going down to the White Estate to march back and forth and protest with a placard.

I'm sorry Tall, but I don't take the all or nothing approach nor do I accept the guilt by association.

 

[NightEternal]

When someone gets the Gospel wrong why would you want to hold onto anything they say? There are many Christian authors that I take the good and leave the bad but those who get the most important things wrong I have no respect for. Then you have the additional aspect that she apparently received her messages from an angel. The Bible says that even if an angel in heaven preaches a different Gospel to not listen to them.

JMHO

I just think there is a better answer to all of this than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Wow, I get heat from the Trads for questioning her and then I get heat from you guys for not rejecting her. I can't win either way.

Is there no middle ground on this issue?

 

[StormyOne]

I just think there is a better answer to all of this than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Wow, I get heat from the Trads for questioning her and then I get heat from you guys for not rejecting her. I can't win either way.

Is there no middle ground on this issue?

sure there is... you do what you are doing.... take the good and leave the bad.... simple as that.... and I agree, I have never advocated an all or nothing approach... never made sense to me....

 

[tall73]

If you tell people that you have not rejected EGW, etc. then what idea do you think they get from that? Your view is not anything like the actual fundamental belief.

Now I have no problem with a realistic portrayal of EGW's writings. And I appreciate that you do paint a realistic portrayal. But then you wonder why the trads attack you for your view. I can see why they might. You do not really accept EGW as a prophet of any sort but as a pastor.

I am not trying to just pile on you. You can hold whatever view you want, and I certainly don't feel you are going to hell for it. But I don't personally get it.

 

[tall73]

If EGW is the same as a pastor in authority then what would you think of a pastor who's work tended to drive people to a wrong view of the gospel and to mental disorders?

I am not wanting to make this personal Night. But these are questions that those of us who are formers deal with. Just as the doctrinal questions we raise cause pain for the trads so this line of questioning may cause you pain. But it is a legitimate line of questioning.

How do you respond to a system that is leading people the wrong direction? How do you deal with a prophet once you decide that she is not really a prophet? Yet she still runs the church from the grave.